Warp wrote:
>   The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).
> 
>   Never mind the questions about basic human rights,

Questions such as, "Since when is Internet service a human right?"

> what really baffles
> my mind is that these directives are being promoted as *increasing* the
> amount of choices people will have.

My answers to your post assume that the term "ISP" refers to a business 
that provides Internet services to paying customers, and does not refer 
to government agencies that are empowered to regulate the Internet, or 
government agencies that are empower to provide Internet service at no 
cost to the customer.

That being said:

If the bill in question reduces the costs of operating an ISP, then it 
will enable the ISPs to offer their services at a lower price, enabling 
some consumers to afford Internet service.

Or let us say that some people can only afford Internet service if it 
costs 10 Euro per month, and they only want it for e-mail, but because a 
local ordinance requires the ISP to provide VOIP, Usenet, and other 
stuff, in addition to e-mail, the ISP must provide services the customer 
does not want, and the ISP will charge a higher price, perhaps a price 
the customer cannot afford.

>   I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.
> Something which causes effect X is promoted as causing the exact opposite
> of X. Limiting people's choice about what they can retrieve from the internet
> is promoted as *increasing* people's choice about what they can retrieve
> from the internet.

It is about increasing the ISPs freedom to offer different services to 
different people, and to offer these people the option of declining 
services for which they have no use.  I see no call for the government 
to shut down certain services.

Given that this is Europe we're talking about, it may be that the 
authorities in certain locales have placed so many roadblocks in the way 
of new businesses that the existing ISPs are effectively insulated from 
competition, and can cut the least profitable services without great 
risk of losing customers to a competitor.  Then this bill could lead to 
a problem, but it must be pointed out that the real cause of the problem 
is the government-imposed difficulty in starting a new business.

> And it's not like this would be the first thing ever that has been
> promoted with its exact opposite.

Well, it's not the first instance of such a thing, because it isn't an 
instance of such a thing at all.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message